SHARE THIS SHOW:
RELATED CONVERSATIONS:
RECENTLY ON TOL:
TOL Our Town
- A tumblr site dedicated to the people and places that make up Oregon and Southwest Washington.
TAGS:
After struggling with securing permits for their Bradwood Landing LNG terminal, NorthernStar Natural Gas said this week they were suspending the project indefinitely. This news was quickly followed by the company's announcement that it was declaring Chapter 7 bankruptcy. NorthernStar laid the blame for the failure on poor market conditions and the protracted regulatory process in Oregon. Environmentalists, who have long opposed LNG projects in the state, are declaring victory, saying public opposition to the project has everything to do with its indefinite delay.
The proposed Bradwood terminal on the Columbia River was not the only liquified natural gas venture in the state. Oregon LNG is still in the permitting process for a terminal they hope to build on the Skipanon Peninsula in Warrenton. The Federal Regulatory Energy Commission hasn't approved that project yet, but FERC gave the go-ahead to the Jordon Cove Energy Project, which is trying to get local and state approval for a terminal in Coos Bay.
People on both sides of the LNG debate are asking: is the viability of these other projects in jeopardy in light of what happened to Bradwood Landing?
Do you live in a community where a liquified natural gas project has been proposed? Have you been involved in public meetings on LNG? What's your reaction to NorthernStar's announcements this week?
GUESTS:
- Cassandra Profita: Environment and business reporter for The Daily Astorian
- Chuck Deister: Former director of government affairs and public relations for NorthernStar Natural Gas
- Brett VandenHeuvel: Executive director of Columbia Riverkeeper
- Kim Heiting: Director of corporate communications for NW Natural Gas
Photo credit: MarkyBon / Creative Commons
-
Why NOT a photo lof a hurricane? Well, how about the fact that our coastal waters are too cold to support a hurricane, for one. They probably chose the photo of a range eye since it was likely the one way their listeners are MOST familiar with Natural Gas.
-
I live in a community where one of the LNG pipelines has been proposed. It disturbs me to think that we, as Oregonians, would even consider allowing LNG infrastructure here. Why in the world would we want to destroy our farmland, along with the natural beauty of Oregon, to build pipelines to import more foreign energy? I want Oregon to be a leader in renewable energy. LNG is NOT what I want for the future of Oregon. LNG terminals, along with the construction of pipelines, will devestate watersheds, harm salmon habitat, clearcut old growth forests, hurt family farms and raise energy costs in the state. Once the pipelines are installed, it will be too late. We will have to live with the permanent damage and the consequences forever. Let's say 'No' to LNG and strive towards energy independence. If we need to sacrifice our resources for the greater good, let's do it for something we can believe in. Let's invest in renewable energy and become a model State for the rest of our great nation.
-
LNG projects in Oregon are a bad idea. Bad for our land, bad for our economy, and bad for our people. I'm going to continue to work to prevent these projects from happening. A nice metaphor that comes to mind is that by approving these projects we are prostituting Oregon, and Oregon isn't even getting paid.
Tyler Gerlach
Freshman, Linfield College
-
I am relieved that Bradwood Landing has been taken off the table. That's one LNG terminal down and two to go. We won't be happy until they are all dead. I don't know anybody who actually welcomes LNG to Oregon. Oregonians don't want it. Why should we accept the environmental costs of these projects which would ship gas through Oregon to California for the benefit of a Texas speculator? It just doesn't make any sense. A lot of farmers, property owners and fishers are pretty upset.
-
Why must we continue to destroy Oregon in the name of profit. An examination of the motives for proceeding with LNG and for the disastrous pipeline through our precious national forest reveals no good or valid reason in support of them. We in Oregon don't need the gas, it will not save ratepayors like myself money, and our immediate and quite long-range supplies of natural gas are secure (at least until we start a logical march towards eliminating our dependency on foreign fossil fuel altogether). The downsides of LNG and Palomar are well-detailed and too numerous to mention for the sake of brevity. We shouldn't even have to be facing this issue.
-
I am a business man working in Astoria and the idea of an LNG terminal with the Oregon LNG people is as bad or worse than the Bradwood site wanted by Northern Star which is now bankrupt. The fact that the Bradwood, Northern Star, people tried for years to get the process to be in their favor by use of investing money with local groups to using money and jobs as an intimidation for those who could not be turned to their way of thinking has come home to rest with the recent bankruptcy and the fact that the current set of County Commissioners let them run up a tab, owed to the county, of over $180,000 and now we will probably never collect or work the county has already done. In addition no one ever looked at existing businesses and what potential effect this might have on them. The County Commissioners went blindly down the road on the promise of jobs and the promise to pay what Northern Star owes. It has always been amazing to me that no one looked at the cost of doing LNG in this area. On the east coast it costs Everett, MA about$40,000 each trip (in and out). Bradwood always wanted to talk about the property taxes they would be paying to the county of nearly 8 million per year but never the cost to the county and if it is anything close to Everett our cost would be close to 12 million per year. Northern Star has been quoted saying that "we will roll over this small county and it is the path of least resistance" or something close to this.
Oregon LNG is a company that took over a bankrupt situation from CalPine and is now trying to get approval to import a foreign fossil fuel. We have an abundance of Natural gas here in this country and the market price for gas is very low domestically so why spend the money trying to create another supply of foreign energy that the USA can become dependent when we do not need to. We have the gas here in the good ole USA.
-
I personally have been involved in defeating the Bradwood project from day one. 5 plus years later they are gone. One thing that has to be remembered is that they chose the Bradwood site in the beautiful estuary. They knew the obsticles and thought money could make it happen; but they underestimated the Oregon and Washington citizens and how they feel about the Columbia River,and the rights of homeowners when it came to the pipeline. We are confident we will defeat both the Coos Bay project and Oregon LNG and their hundreds of miles of related pipelines.
-
My question for the panel is: given the fact that the financial backers of the Bradwood Landing LNG project pulled the plug on it, and that the market for natural gas on the West Coast is flooded with inexpensive domestic supply for the foreseeable future, why are the Oregon LNG and Jordon Cove projects still going forward?
I guess I would like the proponents to describe their economic modeling and their prospects for turning a profit. This seemed to be the flaw in the FERC process - no "need for fuel" or economic modeling requirement in their siting determination, at least as interpreted by the Bush Administration appointees to FERC.
-
Can you imagine a day when we rely on the sun for our energy? Won't happen until we stop importing fuel and start spend our money on research to make it happen soon, not after all the fossil fuel in the world is gone or inaccessable!
-
Check out the solar project in the Mohave Desert, environmentalists are opposing it too..
-
Any new LNG terminal built in Oregon, or near the Pacific Ocean would now serve as a satilite for storage for re-export. Oregon is not about that kind of global market. Domestic natural gas will serve its purpose in the western united states and with much less pipeline impact because the infrastructure and the hub network is already in place within Oregon state to send domestic natural gas north and south. The Ruby natural gas pipeline going through the FERC proccess and the Williams natural gas pipeine (BlueBridge), also flying through FERC , are working closely with environmental agencies and a majority of the planned construction will lie within already established rights of way. The speculators who planned these LNG projects can no longer say that our natural gas supply is maturing, or that it will cost more to ship that gas by pipeline than by LNG tanker. These are moot statements. Because of our capitolistic system, energy conglomerates sought to corner the Western United States LNG market. That would certainly benifit their position in the global market. But things have changed. And just as importantly LNG facilities need to be placed in areas where they can function for profit with the least long term damage to the environment and often the economy which is tied to that environment. A viable shipping channel and agrarian commerce along with our still prestine forests and geologic potential for renewable energy sources is a far better blue print in the long term when stewarding this region than the "buy it now pay later" gold rush hysteria that has failed to influence the common sense of the citizens of this beautiful region and who do understand the workings of democracy within the courts. I believe our founding fathers would be proud of this example of that. The future of LNG in the Pacific Northwest is questionable because the mantra of "let the market decide" is no longer supportable.
-
Oregon Pipeline has proposed the construction of a 36” diameter, 1500 psi natural gas pipeline, which would be routed approximately 500-700 feet behind my home. I am adamantly against the routing and construction of the pipeline. I also oppose the construction of the LNG terminals that Oregon LNG and Northern Star Natural Gas are seeking to build on the Columbia River in Warrenton, OR. and Bradwood Landing respectfully.
Installing the line so close to my home is unsafe and unacceptable. I want to do what I can to prevent the projects from being built. My late wife and I moved to this property 27 years ago and I built our house myself. Our intention was to live a peaceful existence and embrace the forest and rural lifestyle that surrounds the property. Unfortunately I lost my wife of 34 years to cancer, but my intentions are to continue to reside here indefinitely.
There is no doubt in my mind that the pipeline would greatly de-value my property and threaten public safety and security. There are potential hazards associated with the proposed LNG facilities and pipelines, namely: the danger associated with the movement of LNG vessels through the Columbia River bar and the narrow channels upstream, potential pollution, and wildlife habitat impacts, fire hazard do to earthquakes or mechanical failure and the possibility of terrorist attacks.
In the latest election, I and the majority of the citizens of Clatsop County voted in favor of the referendum to keep our parks and open spaces free of these pipelines. I urge our government officials at the city, county, state, and federal level, to stop the permitting process of the Oregon LNG facility in Warrenton, OR, disapprove the construction of the pipeline proposed by Oregon Pipeline, originating at the Warrenton LNG facility, and disapprove the Northern Star Natural Gas application to construct an LNG terminal at Bradwood Landing, OR., in the event that Northern Star or another company that acquires their application continues to pursue the project. I also hope they will disapprove the construction of the Palomar pipeline proposed by Northwest Natural Gas Co. Thank you for your consideration in this matter.
Sincerely,
David Drury
-
LNG projects have imposed severe burdens on state agencies, counties, and hundreds of landowners threatened with appropriation of their land by eminent domain. These projects have no plausible justification now, if they ever did. A large part of the blame for this abusive process lies with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, and the mandate it was given by the Bush-Cheney administration and by the 2005 Congress to push through LNG projects, bypassing state siting and authorizing power. FERC's explicit policy has been to refuse any strategic planning or assessment of national or regional need, but to "let the market decide". If there's an energy speculator or hedge fund that wants to take a long-odds shot at making billions on global LNG trading, that constitutes need. No matter if states' rights, property rights, public will and the environment are trampled by the process. Not to mention our national energy independence and security. The quest for profit has trumped all of these under FERC. The new FERC chair, Jon Wellinghoff, has been a lone sane voice arguing for needs assessment and emphasis on renewals and energy efficiency, and we can only hope he will soon be joined by other like-minded commissioners. Meanwhile Senators Wyden and Merkely have submitted a bill to return siting and approval power to the states, and end FERC's abuse of Oregon.
-
As an opponent of any LNG facility in the state of Oregon, I am encouraged by the demise of the Bradwood Landing project. I would ask all fellow opponents to now turn your attention to the Jordan Cove LNG terminal and Pacific Connector Pipeline projects. As a resident of Douglas County I fear the environmental havoc the pipeline would wreak as it carves a swath through our gorgeous landscape....even proposing to tunnel under rivers & streams. The benefit of all this devastation will not be to the residents of Douglas County, but to the end-users in California.
Pipeline construction necessarily involves land destruction...it is unavoidable...so despite assurances that habitat rehabilitation will be undertaken by the developers...no one can guarantee the long-term impact of tunneling under the stream that supplies my water. The only safe natural gas pipeline....does not exist. And to add insult to injury....I understand that I must personally assume maintenance of a clearly delineated area around the pipeline...in perpetuity! To assert that the pipeline would be beneficial in any way to the affected landowners is utterly ludicrous.
Additionally, I have recently personally witnessed behavior of pipeline employees that borders dangerously close to harassment...all in the effort to obtain consent forms from a fellow property owner. The "Goodfellas" approach is absolutely unnecessary for a legitimate developer to even consider.
There is no demonstrable "need" for LNG in Oregon.....rather, Oregon is just the back door into the sizeable California market. I doubt that the pipeline development will reduce my natural gas bill one iota...after all, my rural county is just a transit point not a lucrative end-market. Californians resoundingly rejected pipeline development on several occasions, due largely to the well-organized anti-LNG activists. Oregon, with a much smaller group of opponents, faces a herculean task of simply educating a complacent public far more concerned with jobs than any negative environmental impact. Fully 50% of the population of Douglas County is utterly unaware of LNG at all. So, soberly recognize a "victory" at Bradwood Landing....that was easy compared to the task of defeating Jordan Cove Terminal & the Pacific Connector Pipeline
-
Some clarity is needed regarding the timing of the recent NorthernStar Natural Gas decision to "suspend" its Bradwood LNG application.
In February of this year, Oregon DEQ repeated its request to NorthernStar for detailed information about how the construction and operation of the terminal would change the Columbia's water velocity, turbidity and temperature during spring and late summer, when salmon are migrating. DEQ requested this data by May 7, 2010 or the permit would likely be denied.
NorthernStar's response was to not provide the needed data, and to issue demands that DEQ either drop its request for three-dimensional modeling of the river or approve a conditional certificate, with additional studies to come later.
Of course the ultimate response was NorthernStar "suspending" its application on May 4 and declaring bankruptcy on May 7. And to blame regulatory delays and the permitting process.
LNG and all its pipelines are not needed in Oregon and it is curious that corporate representatives think they can acquire the necessary permits without performing environmental analyses based on solid science.
Then again, maybe the analyses were performed - with the resulting data interpretations clearly dooming the application.
-
I am pleased to see OPB discussing this important topic. Your last program regarding LNG was a pleasant opportunity for the LNG representatives to broadcast their image of the wonderous opportunity LNG terminals and pipelines offer Oregonians. I am hopeful that more voices of the affected landowners, concerned citizens, and informed environmentalists will be given an opportunity to educate the public in your program today.
As an affected landowner I have been forced to learn about LNG and what a 36 inch pipeline driven through the coast range and interior valleys would mean for the lives of hundreds of Oregonians. It is clear the gas is not intended for Oregon, as such a supply is far more than we could use here. Whether it is to supply California, or whether the hidden agenda is to reverse the flow and export our domestic gas, their seizure of private lands by eminent domain is not appropriate, but rather a violation of our right to own land and be secure in our own homes.
I won't list again the numerous disturbing environmental concerns, that others have described but I hope our community realizes in time that these projects have been hastily conceived; and the risks have been underestimated by the industry. The stakes are enormous for our state and we must act now to prevent energy giants from changing the face of Oregon forever.
-
Northern Star's decision to jump ship is good news for Oregon. The three proposed competing LNG terminals and associated pipelines are not needed and will only prolong the move to renewable energy sources. FERC's siting and permitting process has been deeply flawed and frustrating for those of us involved in fighting the short-sighted vision of the developers. Now the Warrenton and Jordan Cove proposals need to be abandoned. In light of Northern Star's bankruptcy filing, I hope the money they owe Clatsop County is fully recovered.
-
In 2008, I hiked the length of the 47 miles of the Palomar Pipeline that would cross over Mt. Hood National Forest. I walked through old-growth forests, boated across the Wild and Scenic Clackamas River and climbed up some of the steepest slopes in the national forest. As someone who loves the forests and rivers of Mt. Hood, I needed to see for myself what NW Natural was asking us to sacrifice. I can say, without a doubt, that this pipeline is unacceptable.
While I was hiking I kept wondering how they could possibly build such a project without breaking the environmental laws that protect our remaining wild places. If this project was a timber sale or a ski resort expansion, there is no way they could be logging in these areas. Well, in fact, NW Natural is trying to get an exemption from those laws. Why does an energy company get special treatment? Why don't we, the public, get a choice about whether we want these forests cut in the name of energy profit?
Since that hike, I have had the amazing pleasure of working with people from all over this area in resistance to LNG development. The proposals to develop LNG in Oregon are unethical. The directly impacted people of Oregon and Washington whose lives have been on hold for five years feel like if they even blink the companies will be another step closer to taking their land. These same people have worked together in a historic coalition to protect their land and agree on some alternatives. I hope that it is not too late to stop these destructive projects and seize a moment of informed engagement to begin discussing a real energy future.
Amy Harwood
Bark
You can see photos from my 2008 hike at http://www.flickr.com/photos/barkformthood/sets/72157608085808666/. -
Emily & Dave,
I hope you will not allow the industry talking points to dominate the conversation today. The LNG proponents are backed by mega hedgefunds that pose a significant imbalance of power against members of Oregon communities which are comprised by property owners, farmers, nurseries, vineyards, small woodland owners and environmentalists. There is no way these local interests (people) can individually or collectively match the funding the LNG corporate machinery has at their disposal to push through these speculative projects irrespective of the absence of any justifiable need or consideration for the livability for Oregonians. The only power Oregonians have is the power of their energy, involvement and voice to hold the speculators and government officials accountable. It is absolutely laughable that the LNG industry is attempting to portray themselves as victims in this cause.
-
It is amazing to me that with 11% unemployment in Oregon, people don't want to explore all options for energy. It is not about the jobs that come with building the LNG terminal or the pipeline, but the economic development that comes with more natural gas and reliability in the state. As we move from 40% coal powered electricity to cleaner natural gas and renewables, we WILL need more infrastructure in the region. Not to mention the hundreds of thousands of people who will move to Oregon in the next few decades. We have ONE pipeline serving Oregonians currently and we must provide options in order to make Oregon appealing to businesses. We can protect the environment and create a cleaner energy environment at the same time. I ask this question.....if not natural gas and more infratructure to move it to the people, what will this growing region use to back up renewables and keep our homes warm? If no infrastructure is built, what will entice business to move to Oregon?
-
And once again we have the spin factor and the shame on you element here. There will be ample supplies of natural gas for Oregon and Washington for years to come and the infrastructure that you say does not exist does and will. One pipline from Canada has been supplying natural gas to the US for years now and Williams intended blue bridge pipeline will be sufficient to increase the natural gas supply in the Pacific Northwest from the Wyoming shale deposits. Your statement just smells of Union power that didn't get in on this one nor the fact that most of those "jobs" you refer to would be filled by specialized workers who have experience building these kinds of terminals. You are all about global markets and corporate profit, not concern for short term construction jobs.
-
Dear OPB;
I have not heard any comments regarding the impact of increased
tanker traffic to the Oregon Coast. I am concerned about the air quality impact of burning of high sulfur content diesel fuel in these tanker ships.
How might this be regulated ?
Thanks.
-
LNG Tankers do not run on "high sulfur content diesel fuel," they are propelled by waste LNG from their own tanks. It is my impression that they are essentially large thermos bottles that keep the LNG safely under pressure, and thereby in a liquid form; and they are NOT the floating bombs many people presume.
Please be advised that i am an unabashed fan of anything that safely and responsibly expands the maritime industry in Oregon.
-
Then packrat you should know that NorthernStar does not give a damn about US maritime industry. Their plan was to ship LNG from a liquefaction terminal in Valdez, Alaska to Kitimat, Canada, and transfer the methane dirivative there back into an LNG tanker and import it From Canada to the planned terminals on the west coast.. Can you say " to hell with the Jones Act? A little research will prove my statements. Just check out The All Alaska Pipeline being pushed by gubernatorial candidate Bill Walker He has been working with Sempra Energy for almost ten years now with a plan to do just that. Supply the West Coast with imported LNG, all be it domestic, but no thanks to our maritime industry
-
There is a saying of bringing Coals to Newcastle ( a famous Coal Minining Town.)
Northern Star is blaming the Enviormentalist as a cannard. They have been unmoved and unphased by the enviormental objections for years. The REAL reason LNG failed here and WILL fail at other Oregon sites is the MARKETPLACE.
Since 2006 innovations in Fracking and Horizontal Drilling has increased America's domestic Natural Gas reserves not doubling, tripling, quadrupling but increasing 5-FOLD! We have conservative Natural Gas supplies for 150-200 years at current rate use. WE have exceeded Saudi Arabia in Gas Reserves!
Thus natural gas prices have plummeted to less than $5 per BTU compared to $13 in 2008. Bradwood would have lost money from day one with a SEVERE GLUT in North America.
It is NOT Enviormental Regulation. IT is a Failure of Market Forces.
-
Sorry that the Bush-Cheney FERC Manuever trying to bypass State, Local, and enviormental regulation failed. This restores public faith that BAD POLICY and BAD PEOPLE will not last.
And the Bradwood proposal sought to get only Oregon licensing when the majority of residents affected were in Washington State were excluded from the process.
-
Foisting liquefied natural gas off on Oregon, with its inherent environmental damage and its danger of destruction and death, is a spectacularly stupid scheme.
LNG is not needed in Oregon, it has a 30 to 40 percent greater carbon footprint than domestic natural gas. It is expensive, toxic and explosive. Bringing it here would be a huge mistake.
Through a combination of organized opposition and individual actions, we managed to block the Bradwood Landing boondoggle. But there's no place for complacency in this fight.
Two more LNG terminals/regasification plants and hundreds of miles of large-diameter high-pressure pipelines are still planned. These pipes would move the regassified LNG from the coast, across our state and over the Cascade Range to connect with an existing north/south pipeline to California, where it would be sold to further enrich Enron-type investors at our expense.
The proposed Palomar Pipeline is a particular abomination. In addition to ripping through hundreds of miles of farms, vineyards and other private propeties, it would require a freeway-wide swath of right of way be clearcut and bulldozed through the Mt. Hood National Forest. This raw wound would be absolutely devastating to stands of old-growth timber, threatened- and endangered-wildlife and some of the most scenic and recreationally valuable public land in the world.
We MUST prevent Palomar and save Mt. Hood! We MUST prevent these petropirates from plundering our state -- and WE WILL!!!
-
On a recent trip overseas i saw that most of the gas stations have LNG fuel for vehicles. In vehicles LNG is less efficient than gasoline or diesel, but the savings in MPG seems to more than make up for this. Engine conversion is a cheap and easy process, almost within the capability of a backyard mechanic
Is there any discussion of increasing the infrastructure to support LNG as an alternative fuel for fleet and private use?
-
The environmental community hates LNG because it is an imported fossil fuel. What they fail to mention is that 2/3 of our natural gas now is imported from Canada. What is the difference?
Also, the environmental community talks about all the domestic natural gas we have, but when you talk about moving it in a pipeline (Palomar East Side) they oppose that. How do they want the gas to get here? Magic?
When they say LNG is not needed, they are saying natural gas is not needed and that is not true. Check out the energy white paper for Dem candidate for Gov John Kitzhaber....He says natural gas and pipeline infrastructure WILL be needed for Oregon to grow.
-
Another great example of your spin. Your arguments are infantile and uninmormed or meant to cloud the issue. Once again check out El Pasos' Ruby natural gas pipeline and Williams BlueBridge pipeline. Domestic natural gas is by far the best choice for us as we work toward long term renewables. That will take time and cause and effect before the right inventions finally win their place in the market.
-
It's hard for me to listen to Chuck Deister and not "laugh out loud"; therefore, allow me to "think out loud." Chuck Deister is a former state employee (former communications director for Karen Minnis) turned lobbyist and then paid spokesperson for the LNG industry. Deister could be seen regularly sitting in offices of politicians in Salem.
The politicians and lobbyists are all crying crocodile tears about the demise of Northern when, in fact, they are crying about the loss of campaign contributions and other moneys that were regularly being handed around Salem and the coast.
-
Ask Bradwood Advocate if the Bradwood Facility would have had the potential to EXPORT GAS.
THNX
-
Exporting gas would require triple the footprint that Bradwood has. It is impossible to do and just more misinformation.
-
Again not true. If a liquefaction facility were to be built that would be the case. however taking on tankfulls of LNG and then utilizing a simple retrofit that costs as little as $10,000 and changes the intake lines to push out lines is affective as has been proven by LNG facilities in the south. Another half to non -truth. This facility would become a satilite holding facility for the overabundance of LNG that needs a market and would then be exported to higher profit markets overseas.
-
Another show on the religion of Oregon, environmentalism. And, these topics always have so many comments---too many, perhaps. It does surprise me that many care so much about environmental issues. Perhaps, we should be celebrating it. Perhaps, I am wholly inferior and defeated. Or, perhaps I am repulsed by the moralized culture that always seems to go with it. That it has always been a sort of movement and lifestyle, a Ralph Lauren, rather then just a matter-of-fact, sensible idea. Many green topics just don't seem particularly interesting, they are a bunch of boring statistics, that rarely get resolved---where both sides have such certainty. Many times I come away not knowing what to believe, and not really caring all that much. But, the odd thing is I do care about the environment. It does seem sensible not to muck things up, especially when there are alternatives. I wish I could pinpoint where my disdain stems from, and if there is any validity in it.
-
I'm sick of the LNG 'mouthpieces' claiming the review and permit delays are a problem of the state. Our regulatory agencies have a responsibility to provide a thorough review of issues that may damage state interests. The responsibility of the LNG companies is to provide scientific data in response to the agency requests. LNG companies are responsible to failure to provide this data, not the state!
Bradwood and NWN's arguements are disingenuous in their claims that the Bradwood and Palomar projects are seperate projects. Palomar is not needed if there is no LNG terminal at Bradwood.
-
I would like to know if Bradwood had been built how much of the imported LNG would be made availible to Oregon NG consumers? From what I've heard the Palomar pipe line would connect to the transcandada one which would send it south to California which has forbidin the building of LNG terminals on its coast.
-
Question to Riverkeepers?
If no LNG and no domestic gas, what should back up renewables?Coal? Wood? Nuclear? What?
-
Well alas, the time given to speakers on your show has clearly demonstrated what many of us have always suspected......that being the funding NWN and other corporate interests provide guarantees a louder and greater voice than those of the citizens that are held up as critical to the continued operation of OPB.
-
That is absurd! If your claims had any validity, it would certainly make more sense to simply not devote a TOL show to discussing LNG.
-
The reason people like me opposed Bradwood; and the reason it failed as a project, was because of the place they picked. They chose a place that is nearly wilderness, directly across the river from two wildlife areas; one of which holds the primary remaining population of the Columbia Whitetail Deer, and right smack at the edge of a popular salmon fishery. Your guest comented on how it was only a dock and some tanks but the reality was that they were about to put a large, well lighted 24/7 industrial area in a place that is now silent and dark.
Why they weren't putting it in dontown Astoria seems obvious as they were trying to prevent vaporizing an entire city in the event of an accident or terrorist attack on the facility setting all of that gas afire.
As far as the domestic production of Natural Gas goes. The scene of the extraction in Northern Canada is an environemental disaster as they rip up the northern Boreal Forest lungs of the planet and pollute all of the surface water as they grub around. The project is such a massive failure already that even wit the extreme unemployment in Canada at this time they are having to pay a premium price to import workers from the US to get the job done. These people are merely slaves living for months at a time away from their families in barracks with nearly every element of their lives directly under the thumb of the man.
Shale oil in the lower 48 is also a disaster as the fracturing of the earth neccessary to get at it is causing widespread damage to aquifers, many innediately adjacent to the major metro areas of the east.
Start with conservation. Put the unemployed back to work right here in our own backyard woth some real and substantial weatherization programs. Slam a tax on huge homes that hold two people. Make the rich pay for all of the externalities they create.
-
I know that your answer sounds wonderful but it is not at all practical. We must deal with things that are practical. That means working with our environment and accepting the gifts that it offeres while always trying to lessen the impact often needed to aqire those gifts. There is no way the utopian idea that you express will ever happen as you wish it to. After all this time , all of our history and the fact that we are a capitolistic society money will always engender power. That is why it took five years and hours, days, months, time and personal expenditures of money to win this particular battle. There has to be a middle ground and to date with Federal Agencies like FERC that just isn't the case. We can make individual choices and many of us have but to try to force green , green , green down the throat of the masses does not work. Living by example is a better way and taking on the big guys when ever we can.
-
I wish the opponents of every conceivable project would pick which year in the 18th century they wish to live in, and there was a way to accomodate them.
-
I have been involved for years now in the struggle against LNG on the Columbia River and I have not met your "opponents of every conceivable project." That characterization is a cheap and easy ploy to dismiss people without fact or any effort at making a reasoned argument.
As for myself, I have actively opposed two things. One is LNG. The other was shipbreaking at Tongue Point in Astoria. Both arrived with the same set of promises. Both were speculator-driven schemes that would have been destructive to the community and to the Columbia River.
Your comment also ignores all of the positive development that has occurred in the Astoria area in the past 15 years. Economic development doesn't have to trample Oregon values or quality of life.
-
Kim Heiting's defense of the Palomar pipeline is disengenous at best. The Portland metropolitan area is now served by the Williams NW pipeline coming down the I-5 corridor from Canada and the Williams pipeline coming down the north side of the Columbia River gorge. That line has a supplemental line in the planning stages which would bring gas from the Stanfield hub to the Portland/Seattle area. This is the Blue Bridge line. By their own admission, NW Natural will be paying more for the gas they would bring in on Palomar than they are currently paying Williams. NW Natural has a contract with Willliams that just happens to expire on the exact date they are projecting to initiate gas shipment on Palomar. They are just trying to be a big dog in this game. They are also in the business of gas storage, which lacks the regulation seen in gas transmission.
-
A geologist could explain this better than I can, but just think of this state and its clay soils west of the Cascades (that I've seen turn to jelly in small eathquakes) and its waterways. Oregon is crisscrossed by rivers. And then consider the volcanic Cascade mountains (I was driving south from the San Juans close to Mt St. Helens when it blew in 1980).
Anyone with any vision for future generations in this state or anyone who has heard about the existing LNG pipelines that develop leaks with dire repercussions for miles around or anyone who thinks there might be an earthquake in Oregon in the future couldn't possibly support these pipelines. It isn't common sense. We need off this merry-go-round of fossil fuels. No transition. Cold turkey.
-
once again there is reality and there is utopia. In all reality the entire country is webbed with pipeline infrastructure and will continue to be until such future time when renewable energy is the rule and not the exception. The reality is that until much further along when our kitchen utilities, our cars, and everyting else you can imagine have been invented or retrofitted to run on renewable energy sources, when our airplanes don't use jet fuel, when we don't need natural gas to run our electric generator plants, when there is the most money to be made in renewable markets we will have natural gas. Better it be our own domestic product. Geology was my college major and yes this area of the country is fragile in regard to quakes , floods and ocean reared storms which hydrate our soils so much that they collapse into land slides. We do however use and have used natural gas for decades. Natural disasters are something that no one can control. The best precautions that can be taken generally are taken. One can't throw out the baby with the bathwater. One can plan ahead, set in place rules and regulators to those rules and monitor , monitor, monitor. Cold turkey is something one might do to stop smoking, but for a nation to go cold turkey in regard to a built in infrastructure propelled by the market that depends on natural gas is a little over the edge.
-
I can understand the concerns about the transmission pipework needed but honestly having LNG supplied to areas that is mined from the land here in the US is much better than getting it from elsewhere. If we can institute LNG into our economic systems we will work to get away from from the oil mined in other parts of the world.
-
one of your guests kept saying that there is only one nat gas pipeline in Oregon...
check-out the map at:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/natural_gas/analysis_publications/ngpipeline/western.html
-
Two corporate spokespeople paid to spout a highly slanted and often flat-out incorrect party line (one of them an OPB sponsor), against one defender of Oregon's environment-- this was hardly a fair or balanced presentation of a complex issue.
Kim Heiter made some demonstrably false statements. One only has to look at a map of Palomar East to see that it does not provide a new interstate route to bring domestic natural gas into Oregon--at most it provides about 100 miles of alternate route to the current pipeline along the Gorge. On the other hand, the Ruby pipeline from Wyoming to southern Oregon is now approved and preparation for construction has already begun. Ruby will provide the needed alternate route and diversity of supply, and is part of the bigger picture of what sank Bradwood, and will sink the other LNG projects as well.
It is important to understand the sources of LNG. Chuck Deister mentioned Australia, the only source that LNG proponents deceptively site, because all the others (which are in reality more likely) are far less palatable: Qatar, Algeria and Russia's Gazprom. Gazprom has publically stated its goal to control 10 percent of the U.S. natural gas market. It now has contracts to provide LNG to southern California, through an LNG terminal in Baja Mexico. What a crazy, dumb idea, when a key bipartisan goal is to reduce our dependence on foreign energy, much less foreign sources that are both unstable and not our allies. -
OPB...I hope you have, and will continue to review the comments on this site in regard to the LNG issue. This entire enterprize was not about jobs, it was not about providing the pacific northwest with natural gas, it was not meant to solve our fossil fuel requirements. It was meant to make money, lots of money for market gamblers. This plan was mapped out early in the new century. It included plans to import a domestic product through a foreign country( Canada) in order to side slip the Jones Act. A provision that benifits American marine employees. It was meant to engulf the entire western coast and parts of the southern mid-west with foreign imports of fossil fues. It was meant to insure another 30 to 50 years of foreign control over the United States energy grid. And it almost succedded by keeping our attention focused on close to home issues. Organizations like OPB are obligated to present the big picture here and I don't think this story is over yet so I encourage OPB to continue to press on with the investigation of LNG as a viable commodity in this country over our domestic product which will buffer the time it will take to develope new renewable branches of industry that will have a much better chance if the watchdogs don't bury them like a bone and hope that they can dig them up later.
-
Comments are now closed.
Dear OPB,
Rather than a photo of a stove top, why not a photo of a hurricane or a 47 mile long clear cut? More LNG lines in Oregon would create permanent clear cuts and only worsen climate change giving rise to all kinds of climate related problems (ie increased numbers of hurricanes, flooding, etc).
We should focus on alternative energy sources, reduce energy demand, and do what we can to protect some of the worlds best carbon sinks: Oregon's forests. Recent studies show that Oregon has 6 of the top 10 carbon storing forests in the country. Cutting them down to put in more gas pipelines is going in the opposite direction we should be going.
Erik Fernandez
Oregon Wild